Biomarker de-Mendelization: principles, potentials and limitations of a strategy to improve biomarker prediction by reducing the component of variance explained by genotype
AbstractIn observational studies, the Mendelian randomization approach can be used to circumvent confounding, bias and reverse causation, and to assess a potential causal association between a biomarker and risk of disease. If, on the other hand, a substantial component of variance of a non-causal biomarker is explained by genotype, then genotype could potentially attenuate the observational association and the strength of the prediction. In order to reduce the component of variance explained
... ariance explained by genotype, an approach that can be seen as the inverse of Mendelian randomization - biomarker de-Mendelization - appears plausible.Plasma YKL-40 is a good candidate for demonstrating principles of biomarker de-Mendelization because it is a non-causal biomarker with a substantial component of variance explained by genotype. This approach is an attempt to improve the observational association and the strength of a predictive biomarker; it is explicitly not aimed at detection of causal effects.We studied 21 161 individuals form the Danish general population with measurements of YKL-40 concentration and rs4950928 genotype. Four different methods for biomarker de-Mendelization are explored for alcoholic liver cirrhosis and lung cancer.De-Mendelization methods only improved predictive ability slighly. We observed an interaction between genotype and markers of developing disease with respect to YKL-40 concentration.Even when genotype explains 14% of the variance in a non-causal biomarker, we found no useful empirical improvement in risk prediction by biomarker de-Mendelization. This could reflect the predictive interaction between genotype and disease development being removed which counterbalanced any beneficial properties of the method in this situation.